4.0 Article

Polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in soils and lichens from King George Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

Journal

ANTARCTIC SCIENCE
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 31-38

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0954102009990472

Keywords

environmental contamination; persistent organic pollutants; Usnea aurantiaco-atra

Funding

  1. Korea Polar Research Institute [PE09110, PE09040, PE09010]
  2. National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST), Republic of Korea [PE09040, PE09010] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The levels and distribution of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners were analysed in fourteen soil and eight lichen (Usnea aurantiaco-atra) samples from King George Island, West Antarctica. A total of 32 PCB congeners were found in five soil samples collected in 2006, and the mean concentration of total PCBs was 20.4 pg g(-1) dry weight (range, 8.0-33.8 pg g(-1) dry weight). The most abundant PCB isomers in soil samples were di-, tri-, and penta-CBs, which accounted for more than 75% of the total residues. Twelve dioxin-like PCBs were also detected in nine soil and eight lichen samples, and the levels of dioxin-like PCBs were 5-fold higher in lichens than in soil. PCBs were detected at very low levels in most soil and lichen samples. The highest congener concentrations were found for PCB 118 (6.63 and 21.93 pg g(-1) in soil and lichen, respectively) among dioxin-like PCBs. PCB levels in air samples were highly correlated with those in soil and lichen samples, as were PCB levels in soil and lichen samples collected at the same site. Long-range atmospheric transport IS thought to be the main source of PCBs oil King George island. However, PCB levels in soil and lichen samples were also apparently influenced by local sources of PCBs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available